RadioBanter - View Single Post

June 28th 05, 04:08 AM

wrote:
John Smith wrote:
... the amateur tests are a trivial problem to men with real
educations...

What about women with real educations?

Would you consider someone with a BSEE from the University of
Pennsylvania and an MSEE from Drexel University to have
"a real education"?

... the cw part

Is an amateur test. And is a trivial problem to people with
real educations..

Simply not neccasarly so Jim

makes as much sense as learning to play a "jew's
harp"--a lot of sense if you wish to, none if you don't...

Then why require someone with no interest in VHF-UHF to learn
those techniques in order to operate on HF? Why require
knowedge of FSK, PSK and other data modes to operate voice?
Why require knowledge of transistors and ICs to operate
vacuum-tube equipment?

Why? We don't require it you don't have to get right fully 25 percent
of the stuff, and you can pick and choose what not to know

IOW, why require anyone to learn anything about a subject they
are not interested in, just to get a license to do the things
they *are* interested in?

We don't you presentation is inaccurate

--

Perhaps what bothers some people the most about the code test
is that it isn't something most people already know. And it
isn't something that can be learned by reading a book, watching
a video, etc. It's a skill, not "book learning".

In learning the code, a Ph.D in EE has to start at the same place
as a grade-schooler. And the grade schooler may learn faster and
do better! Perhaps it is this characteristic of the test - its
ability to act as a Great Equalizer - that causes some to resent
it so much.

Not true, surely you understand that not everyone has the difficulty in
learning Morse Code.

That creates a bias based on brain fucntion and anything but a level
feild